Parliament’s
sub-committee on human rights will soon discuss the first chapter of the report
of the National Human Rights Commission on the incidents of July 1, 2008.
Kh.Temuujin, who heads the sub-committee, answers questions on what progress
has been made to unravel the truth of events almost two years ago.

 What do you expect from the sub-committee
meeting?

Our
group was set up to gather information about four kinds of human rights
violation during the incidents and to submit a report to Parliament. First was
the mass arrest after a state of emergency was declared. We investigated
complaints and reviewed reports from human rights organizations and found that
many of those arrested were beaten up. Police personnel testifying at the open
hearing did not deny this.

The
second charge related to extraction of forced confession and making false
promises to get information. This is not strictly or exclusively connected to
the July 1 incidents but shows how investigative organizations work.

Third
came charges of bias against judicial organizations, which alleged that
prosecutors had followed orders from above on how to proceed, instead of
conducting an impartial investigation. This denied justice to the accused. Our
investigation found little discipline and cohesion in the way cases are
registered and records of investigated maintained by police organizations. We
found it very difficult to trace violations. Apart from deliberate infraction,
we also found that many police officers lacked awareness of human rights. Independence
is rare in court organizations is lost. The judge general regularly instructs
lower judges on what  their verdict
should be. There are many other violations like this.

The
fourth issue was the use of fire arms.

We
found a vacuum in the entire legal sector. There is no general policy on
protection of human rights, or on preventing or solving crimes. That empty
space acts as the graveyard of justice and human rights. We shall make wide
ranging recommendations for the Government, Parliament, the police and the
President to consider.

Is it true that the
irresponsible report by the human rights commission helped in the miscarriage
of justice?

It
happened many times during the trials. Whenever defense lawyers would claim
violation of human rights in some form, the judges would say, “What are you
talking about? The director of National Human Rights Commission, D.Solongo, has
already certified that there were no violations of human rights at any stage.
This certainly worked against justice. The person in charge of protection of
human rights made a mistake, if we do not use a stronger word. We were planning
to demand her dismissal but it appears she has chosen to resign. Now we have to
find a better successor. We can only have someone committed to honoring human
rights to head this organization.

Will the National
Security Council discuss your report?

It
is not necessary. The working group led by MP U.Enkhtuvshin has prepared a
document for the Security Council. I am a bit confused. My understanding is that
a working group established by Parliament must report to Parliament and to
nobody else. It is not clear to me which organization is considering which
issue. People will be in the know only when Parliament discusses something.
Private meetings are not the same as an open hearing. Anyway, our scope was
restricted to human rights, while U.Enkhtuvshin’s working group had a far
broader area to cover.

Will the state apologize
to the people?

We
shall recommend that the Government apologize to the people for violating human
rights.

The open forum could not
discuss use of fire arms. When will the issue be heard?

The
formal investigation into the matter is not yet over. We should be able to
discuss it when it finishes.

When will this be?

Court
operations generally take 2 years or more, but I cannot say how long this
particular exercise will take.